This is a tag on to the thread posted before, except I have finally figured out how to do a poll which is what I originally wanted to do.

This poll almost feels like one of those "personality" quizzes. each answer tells something about the person who voted on the item of their  choice based on what they consider autism to be. I'll explain why I chosen other.

I'm curios about rather or not it's a form of evolution after watching the show, ancient aliens. This is a show based on the ancient astronomers theory which is a theory to explain away these mysteries from our past.  

what if these aliens had a hand in Autism ? Like they came down from space, abducted a few people and manipulated their DNA. Think about it, extra terrestrials would indeed have technology eons beyond what we would accomplish in billions of years. They must possess a superior knowledge of how human DNA works and how to change it in a way that starts some domino effect. Like how a virus spreads from one person to another, these changed genetics must had spread from people who were abducted in the past.  

I really think that aliens are experimenting on us humans and our differences are really caused by extra terrestrials wanting to help mankind by making us smarter. So that the human race would prevail and live forever.

Forgot what the ancient pharaoh's name was, but one episode on Ancient Aliens featured this pharaoh and the mysterious alien shaped head of his. He looked like he could easily have had FXS (fragile X syndrome) and maybe he was autistic and maybe he wasn't.

So I guess my answer is sort of "all of the above". :/    

Thanks for sharing MLB.

I feel, as stated previously, that autism is a neurotype, and as such, it is essentially permanent, but at the same time, it (as defined by DSM and doctors) it is not a complete neurotype, but rather a facet. Other contributors, such as IQ, ADHD, personality, and other features (both genetic and environmental) are also facets of an individual's neurotype (in my opinion)...unless I have my definition of neurotype screwed up...

Variety in neurotype is natural and highly probable (IMO) considering the naturally occurring variety in everything else. It is obviously evolutionarily "OK" considering its genetic prevalence and contribution to the success of human beings, just as NT neurotype contributes. Therefore autism is not superior, nor inferior, but unique and beneficial all the same. The fact is, human beings are social creatures [in the sense that we depend on one another] and our survival banks on the fact that we will be patient and understanding, and care for one another as well as we can-- without jeopardizing the whole of society. This natural ability of ours seems to be focused in a strange delusional fashion by many who identify autism as threatening to our gene pool and survival, when in reality it is not.

This post was last modified: 07-19-2012 05:46 AM by sg1008.

Other:
A permanent neurotype but not rejected by most of society.

Why:
In some instances "society" wants and needs the input of those on the spectrum, so there are some "safe havens", even if a majority (?) of those on the spectrum don't profit from these cases.

A permanent neurotype which is atypical and a disability IN this society.

I think (pure opinion here, not based on data or science) that the definition of the autism spectrum has "drifted" quite a bit from what people like Hans Asperger identified. Look at how we complain about autism stereotypes - where in the past you wouldn't have been thought of as autistic if you didn't match those stereotypes. Autism is now more of an umbrella than a spectrum, as there is so much diversity among those who identify as, or are identified as, autistic.

I think you mean what Leo Kanner identified. Hans Asperger actually focused on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Yes, I mean what people like Kanner defined as one end of the spectrum as well as what people like Asperger defined as the other end of the spectrum. I mean that the spectrum, or umbrella, now includes plenty of people who do not fit the stereotypes. This is not a bad thing or a good thing, it's just the way it is - or at least the way it seems to me. This is just opinion, I may well be entirely wrong.

And I am not meaning to imply that autism should be an exclusive club only for those who meet the stereotypes.

As I said in the answers thread, it's simply an arbitrary set of characteristics that have been arbitrarily outlined as a separate category of human being.

Does that mean that you ascribe to the "social construct" theory of autism?

SG1008—
Glad to see this; it helps people to do some of that commonly recommended
introspection and then see how their self-views compare w/ those of other
aspergans.
Thanks,
kullervo

sg1008—
Glad to see this; it helps people to do some commonly recommended introspection
and then see how their self-views compare w/ those of other aspergans.
Thanks,
kullervo

oops!
Sorry, hit wrong button!
kullervo

I think not: I know (of) some non-verbal autistics, who do communicate with other (verbal) autistics (but not with NTs). There must be some "common ground".